In re Maeder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Maeder

203 A.D.2d 464, 610 N.Y.S.2d 860

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 464 (In re Maeder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Maeder, 203 A.D.2d 464, 610 N.Y.S.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a contested accounting proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated February 7, 1992, which granted the petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing one of the amended objections to the accounting.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

To obtain summary judgment the movant must make a "prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue[s] of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Here, the petitioner made such a showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The appellant’s opposing papers did not constitute sufficient proof to defeat the motion for summary judgment, because they consisted entirely of conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a contested accounting proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated February 7, 1992, which granted the petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing one of the amended objections to the accounting.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

To obtain summary judgment the movant must make a "prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue[s] of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Here, the petitioner made such a showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The appellant’s opposing papers did not constitute sufficient proof to defeat the motion for summary judgment, because they consisted entirely of conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 464, 610 N.Y.S.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-maeder-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack